This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Fraud
Foundation Stantion System

Matt Cusimano v. Abesco Distributing Company, Inc., et al

Published: Dec. 4, 1993 | Result Date: Sep. 27, 1993 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 522632 –  $795,000

Judge

James T. Ford

Court

Sacramento Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James S. Rummonds
(Rummonds Law Firm)


Defendant

Carolyn M. Pacheco


Facts

In 1980 the State of California came out with Codes providing for state approval of permanent foundation systems for mobile homes and manufactured buildings. Plaintiff Matt Cusimano allegedly created a permanent foundation stantion for mobile homes. He put together a corporation and found a manufacturer in Sacramento to produce his new invention. When his original foundation stantion failed the new state standards for load-bearing capacity and deflection, Plaintiff reworked the stantion so that it passed all requirements. During the application process for state approval, Plaintiff's personal life necessitated a move; and so, Plaintiff left the business to be run by his partners. In 1990, while bidding an iron work job at a mobile home park in the Lancaster/Palmdale area, Cusimano chanced upon a crew installing a permanent foundaiton system under a mobile home. He allegedly recognized the stantions being used as his own invention. He learned that Defendant Abesco Distributing of Sacramento was the manufacturer and that one of his former partners was doing the engineering for the annual renewals for state approval.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff contends he demanded $350,000 and Defendants offered $125,000 structured.

Damages

Compensatory damages of from $200,000 to $800,000; punitive damages on the basis of gross profit figures.

Deliberation

9.5 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

7 days


#112389

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390